Madras High Court quashes Income Tax prosecution against Gautham Vasudev Menon

Madras High Court quashes Income Tax prosecution against Gautham Vasudev Menon, confirming his resignation from Photon Kathas prior to the issue.

The Madras High Court on Monday (April 6, 2026) quashed the criminal prosecution launched by the Income Tax (I-T) department against film producer, director, and actor Gautham Vasudev Menon for the alleged failure on the part of film production and distribution firm, Photon Kathas Production Private Limited of Chennai, to file its I-T returns for the assessment year 2013-14.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan allowed Mr. Menon’s quash petition pending since 2023. Making it clear that the prosecution was being quashed only against the petitioner since he had resigned from the post of director of the film production company as early as May 2, 2011, the judge ordered that the prosecution against the other directors of the company shall proceed.

He also directed an Additional District Court dealing with economic offence cases at Egmore in Chennai to complete the trial in the case within three months. The petitioner’s counsel Revathi Manivannan brought to the notice of the court that Photon Kathas was engaged in the business of production and distribution of feature films and that it had multiple directors.

The I-T department had initiated the prosecution against the company under Section 276C (wilful attempt to evade tax) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Apart from the company, the prosecution had been launched against S. Venkatramanan, Mr. Menon, T.S.T. Ramanujam, and Reshma Ghatala too, by identifying them as the directors who were responsible for the non-filing of the I-T returns.

Ms. Manivannan told the court Mr. Menon was inducted as a director of the film production company on June 1, 2010, and he resigned from the post on May 2, 2011. She also produced a copy of Form 32 filed before the Registrar of Companies to inform the officer about the resignation of the director and contended that the petitioner was not a director of the company at the relevant point of time.

The court was told that prosecution had been launched for the non-filing of returns for the assessment year 2013-14, which was related to the financial year 2012-13. “The financial year begins from April 1, 2012, but the petitioner had resigned from the company in May 2011 itself,” the counsel said and urged the court to quash all further proceedings against him.